Rule of downgraded jumps?

I am discouraged to see that skaters are not credited to try more difficult things. I think the new judging system should change their rules in the downgrade jump.

For example, here is Alissa Czisny triple lutz/triple toehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baXsIoWx9EM (at 0:34). I think that the system should yes credit a downgrade triple toe but why the GOE should be negative, like we see, this was not a so bad jump. The combo look great and I think that the judge should give a GOE normal like if it was clean considering the good ending of the jump.

Her triple lutz at 0:50 yes should be downgrade and considering that she two foot her landing. She should receive a GOE of -2.
Her triple loop at 1:18 yes should be downgrade but I think that she should have received a GOE of 0 because the jump in our eyes look not bad.

Basically, I'm just trying to say that yes the jumps should be judged and downgrade if necessary. But why must a downgrade jump should given a negative GOE. I think if a jump downgrade would be considered like a clean jump, it would help the sport and the skaters would be less afraid to try.

For example, here is Alissa Czisny triple lutz/triple toehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baXsIoWx9EM (at 0:34). I think that the system should yes credit a downgrade triple toe but why the GOE should be negative, like we see, this was not a so bad jump. The combo look great and I think that the judge should give a GOE normal like if it was clean considering the good ending of the jump.

It's hard to tell in real time with a camera angle that doesn't even show the whole blade, but if you look at the slow motion replay at 4:46 in that video, it's pretty clear that it was not a good landing -- blatant severe underrotation.

The current rules are that for a downgraded jump (more than 180 degrees short), the GOE should be reduced by -2 or -3 and the final GOE must be negative. Since this is a two-jump combination and the other jump was OK, the judges could say to themselves that they were starting with +1 and then taking off -2 for the cheat to end up with -1.

If the jump were less severely underrotated and called only as < instead of <<, then it is not required for the final GOE to be negative.

I think that she should have received a GOE of 0 because the jump in our eyes look not bad.

I don't know, they look pretty badly underrotated to my eyes in real time, and doubtless to the judges' eyes as well.

Judges take these kinds of errors seriously. They see them all the time -- much more common below the top elite levels -- and they penalize them all the time.

Since the balance isn't disrupted, that shows better control than if it were, so the -2 makes more sense than -3. But it's still a serious technical error.

There can be argument that downgraded jumps are penalized twice -- in the lowered base mark and also in the -GOE. That's a valid point, and why I was so against downgrading jumps only a little over 90 degrees short until 2 years ago.

Still, they do definitely deserve to be penalized. They are not clean jumps and often indicate that the skater hasn't mastered the jump at all yet, especially at lower levels.

At best, maybe the compromise could be that judges mark what they see, technical panels review and call what they see, and judges have the option to adjust their marks based on the call. But if the panel calls a downgrade and a judge thinks the jump looked good in real time, or not that badly cheated, then the judge could have the option to give 0 GOE and let the only penalty be in the base mark?

It's hard to tell in real time with a camera angle that doesn't even show the whole blade, but if you look at the slow motion replay at 4:46 in that video, it's pretty clear that it was not a good landing -- blatant severe underrotation.

The current rules are that for a downgraded jump (more than 180 degrees short), the GOE should be reduced by -2 or -3 and the final GOE must be negative. Since this is a two-jump combination and the other jump was OK, the judges could say to themselves that they were starting with +1 and then taking off -2 for the cheat to end up with -1.

If the jump were less severely underrotated and called only as < instead of <<, then it is not required for the final GOE to be negative.

I don't know, they look pretty badly underrotated to my eyes in real time, and doubtless to the judges' eyes as well.

Judges take these kinds of errors seriously. They see them all the time -- much more common below the top elite levels -- and they penalize them all the time.

Since the balance isn't disrupted, that shows better control than if it were, so the -2 makes more sense than -3. But it's still a serious technical error.

There can be argument that downgraded jumps are penalized twice -- in the lowered base mark and also in the -GOE. That's a valid point, and why I was so against downgrading jumps only a little over 90 degrees short until 2 years ago.

Still, they do definitely deserve to be penalized. They are not clean jumps and often indicate that the skater hasn't mastered the jump at all yet, especially at lower levels.

At best, maybe the compromise could be that judges mark what they see, technical panels review and call what they see, and judges have the option to adjust their marks based on the call. But if the panel calls a downgrade and a judge thinks the jump looked good in real time, or not that badly cheated, then the judge could have the option to give 0 GOE and let the only penalty be in the base mark?

Downgraded jumps are penalized twice but so are falls on elements. I have seen some jumps so penalized the element almost didn't count at all.

At best, maybe the compromise could be that judges mark what they see, technical panels review and call what they see, and judges have the option to adjust their marks based on the call. But if the panel calls a downgrade and a judge thinks the jump looked good in real time, or not that badly cheated, then the judge could have the option to give 0 GOE and let the only penalty be in the base mark?

This is exactly what I wish they introduce next year.
Does anybody feel the same ?